107 replies to this topic

[Ghostrider]

I'd rather be safe than sorry. that is probably due to my Christian fundamentalist upbringing. I don't believe that God is likely to exist, and I don't live my life as though there is some kind of God, but you never know. I'd rather not ruin my only chance at salvation if all that crap does happen. Irrational I know, but then, when have humans ever been completely rational beings?

I do not think that anyone can prove that there is no God or even comment on the odds or there being a God or not. If this question could be answered absolutely, we would not be having this debate. As I said before, the most reasonable beleif is agnosticism. We simply do not know what happens after this life. Actually, believe whatever you want to believe as long as you base your actions purely on facts which can be proven :-).

Can someone please fix the quoting feature?

[mushman]

I do not think that anyone can prove that there is no God or even comment on the odds or there being a God or not.

This is exactly why I am an atheist. The concept of a God is something we can only blabber meaninglessly about. There is no way to verify or refute it.

[Ghostrider]

What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? Is an agnostic simply more tolerant towards letting others practice their religions and act on their beliefs?

[Athanasios]

I do not think that anyone can prove that there is no God or even comment on the odds or there being a God or not.

The way Dawkins said it goes something like this. One of science's current hypothesis is that there was a big bang from a singularity, maybe a very very small point of energy. Religion's hypothesis was that there was an all knowing, all powerful, anthropomorphic god that created everything (whether everything directly of the big bang itself). However absurd it sounds that a point of energy could wink into existence and create the big bang, it is much more absurd that something as complex as an all knowing, all powerful, god winked into existence. It is much harder to begin with something very very complex, than something very simple. In fact, explaining how something so complex came into existence at the beginning of the universe, is even harder than explaining how the universe came into existence itself.

What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? Is an agnostic simply more tolerant towards letting others practice their religions and act on their beliefs?

This is a serious question, and it is the reason I am in this forum. At what point is tolerance the way to be? We have people that seriously believe that they would rather die trying to rid everyone else off of the face of the planet than actually do it. This makes their want on earth perpetual war. That is an extreme. A lesser extreme is a belief that can be manipulated for reasoning to go to war or not to investigate in scientific matters. At what point is it harmless? If it is not harmless, how much tolerance should we have if we respect our fellow human beings?

[vortexentity]

I would like to add a little something to this thread that I think is relevant.

Religious visions of Gods, fairies, angels, and demons, all come from the human mind and are given existence by our belief in them and are spread to others who did not experience these visions through stories told by word of mouth or by writing and art works.

These visions are primal and are induced by chemicals in the brain. The best researched of them is DMT: The Spirit Molecule

This is the root of religion in my opinion. Folks that have things happen to them that trigger the release of this chemical in the brain have a profound experience. The experience changes them and they are in essence born again. It is commonly caused by a near death experience. It can also be caused by serious injury or stress. Many of the religions that require acts of faith that involve fasting, prayer, and physical stress are attempting to cause this chemical to be released in the subject.

When the acolyte achieves the desired state of mind caused by the release of DMT in the subjects brain they are then enlightened and are brought into the higher levels of the religious order.

All other religions are the watered down remains of this method of attainment of higher consciousness.

This is my opinion and it is based not solely on dispassionate observation, but also on experimentation, and study of these mystical subjects in depth for much of my younger life. This is not to say that God did not put this ability to produce this chemical in our brains by design so that we could connect to him.

There is no way to transfer the profound experience of DMT from one person to another without use of this substance. If you have not had the experience you may not believe in it. It is an experience far outside of the part of the mind that experiences reason.

[william7]

I've studied the Bible thoroughly but have never read anything suggesting the writers of the Old or New Testament ever used any hallucinogenic substances. Ask any theologian and I'm sure they'll tell you the same.

Because it's such a high interest subject, there's been a lot of scholarly research conducted on how the peoples of the Bible lived during that era. Never have I seen anything about hallucinogens in the literature.

It seems that DMT use was a South American phenomenon occurring after the Biblical era. See http://en.wikipedia....ptamine#Culture.

[vortexentity]

elijah3,
the research indicates that the brain produces this DMT under stress conditions such as near death, fasting, meditation in difficult positions, and other such conditions. We do not have to consume this chemical from plant origins as it is synthesized in the pineal gland under these conditions.

It is secreted in smaller quantities and causes lesser altered states such as hypnotic states, as well as the more profound states in larger amounts to cause exaltation such as religious or spiritual enlightened states. It is a chemical altered state but produced by the body not by use of a plant substance.

Discover Article

[william7]

vortexentity,
That was interesting material. Thanks for sharing it. Of course, I don't believe DMT produced by the pineal gland in response to severe stress accounts for the God experiences of those inspired to produce the Bible. It would be too incredible to suggest that all those people shared the same type or very similar stress induced hallucinations and delusions over spans of thousands of years.

I've been subjected to severe food deprivation, sensory deprivation, and sleep deprivation under hostile conditions but never had DMT hallucinations or delusions. Anger and aggression were the only response. Inspired by Dr. Leary, I too conducted extensive research and experimentation with hallucinogenics and other psychotropics substances in my youth until restrictions were imposed and funding dried up. I was not able to produce any God experiences or extreme hallucinations like mentioned in the article. Very close though.

[garethnelsonuk]

When did you convert?

If you had not fully converted you would likely not have had such a religious experience. I know if I was to try psychedelics (never will, my brain and mental health are important to me), I would probably see things relating to my life experiences, films and books, music etc - all sources of fantasy my subconcious can draw upon.

Edited by garethnelsonuk, 19 December 2006 - 06:38 PM.

[william7]

When did you convert?

When funding dried up in 1976, I thought the logical course was to sink everything I had left into the study of law and psychology. It wasn't until 1989 that I converted and began a serious study of the Bible.

[stephenszpak]

QUOTE[/b] (garethnelsonuk)<!--QuoteEBegin]garethnelsonuk wrote>Where is the evidence that the universe was created by a deity? 
  
  Stephen wrote> You (and anyone here) is free to believe that billions of
                          galaxies created themselves.
                          You can
                          even believe that time itself, created itself. I'm not here to
                          fight.

-Stephen

Who's fighting?

I'm merely responding to your claims in a section named "round table discussion" where people will express their opinions on various subjects. Who claimed that billions of galaxies "created themselves" either?

garethnelsonuk

garethnelsonuk wrote> Who's fighting?

Stephen wrote> Just covering my bases.


garethnelsonuk wrote> Who claimed that billions of galaxies "created themselves" either?

Stephen wrote> You know the familiar story. 'The universe created itself. Time also. Humans beings created themselves.
(You know, life came from non-living matter.) Also because human beings created themselves,
one has to say that love and hate and pain and joy created themselves too.'

-Stephen

Edited by stephenszpak, 20 December 2006 - 06:55 AM.

[stephenszpak]

I do not think that anyone can prove that there is no God or even comment on the odds or there being a God or not.

This is exactly why I am an atheist. The concept of a God is something we can only blabber meaninglessly about. There is no way to verify or refute it.

Searching for God is something to try. Talk to God. Ask Him if He is real.
Ask Him to do what He has to do to make you know He is real. (This is not
addressed only to mushman but to whoever.)

-Stephen

[AaronCW]

What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? Is an agnostic simply more tolerant towards letting others practice their religions and act on their beliefs?

This is a serious question, and it is the reason I am in this forum. At what point is tolerance the way to be? We have people that seriously believe that they would rather die trying to rid everyone else off of the face of the planet than actually do it. This makes their want on earth perpetual war. That is an extreme. A lesser extreme is a belief that can be manipulated for reasoning to go to war or not to investigate in scientific matters. At what point is it harmless? If it is not harmless, how much tolerance should we have if we respect our fellow human beings?

An agonostic is a mystic that either cannot or does not feel comfortable defining what that 'god' or 'force' is that they believe in. An athiest is not a mystic. They are also not necessarily anything more than that. An athiest is not necessarily intolerant to religion (although I personally am). You could safely say that the typical athiest is much more neutral, and therefore tolerant, to any particular religion than a person who believes that their religion is true and everyone else is evil.

[Ghostrider]

It is commonly caused by a near death experience.

The most convincing NDE's happen when the patient is known to be completely unconscious. In such a state, the person is unable to recall their experiences. Most convincing is when the person is able to describe what the surgeons where doing or saying during the surgery when the patient was known to be unconscious.

I have never had an NDE, never came close fortunately.

[Athanasios]

The most convincing NDE's happen when the patient is known to be completely unconscious.  In such a state, the person is unable to recall their experiences.  Most convincing is when the person is able to describe what the surgeons where doing or saying during the surgery when the patient was known to be unconscious.

I have never had an NDE, never came close fortunately.

There was an interesting thread a while back on these, if you are interested. I do not remember now if it was started by kylyssa, but I do know she had some interesting info about it.

[william7]

You could safely say that the typical athiest is much more neutral, and therefore tolerant, to any particular religion than a person who believes that their religion is true and everyone else is evil.

A person practicing true Christianity, as Christ taught it, is not permitted to verbally or physically attack sinners or unbelievers as evil or wicked persons. See, for example, Matthew 5:43-48; 9:12,13; 28:18-20; John 8:3-11. His/her job is to win over the sinner and the unbeliever through exemplary behavior and through reasoning from the Scriptures. See, for example, Matthew 5:16; Acts 4:2; 17:11. However, the true practitioner is not to become entangled in the false doctrines and pagan religions of the world. See, for example, James 1:27.

True, violence will be used by God, Christ, and even by Their followers, in the end times to achieve victory over the wicked and the forces of evil in order to establish a peaceable civilization on earth where the inhabitants will be "one in heart and mind" practicing a perfect, socialist, Christianity. See, for example, Malachi 4:1-3; Revelation 19:11-21, Matthew 19:21-27; Acts 2: 44,45; 4:32-35.

I would like to point out that the scientists and atheists who see no evidence for the existence of God, in most cases, have not done a thorough study of the Bible. They usually employ simplistic logic or sophistry to explain away something that's much more complex. The uniqueness of the Bible and its consistent theme is a strong piece of evidence for the existence of God. If anybodies interested, they should checkout the video and literature, at http://www.beyondtod...ProgramID=bt015, for a persuasive argument providing what I believe to be fairly good evidence for God's existence.

[mushman]

Searching for God is something to try. Talk to God. Ask Him if He is real.
Ask Him to do what He has to do to make you know He is real. (This is not
addressed only to mushman but to whoever.)

[huh]

[mushman]

I would like to point out that the scientists and atheists who see no evidence for the existence of God, in most cases, have not done a thorough study of the Bible. They usually employ simplistic logic or sophistry to explain away something that's much more complex.

That seems awfully assumptive and fallacious. Maybe theists just haven't done a thorough study of atheism?

The uniqueness of the Bible and its consistent theme is a strong piece of evidence for the existence of God.

How so?

[william7]

That seems awfully assumptive and fallacious. Maybe theists just haven't done a thorough study of atheism?

I've looked at what some atheists have written over the years but have been forced to reject it as not well reasoned. True, most theists are born into their particular brand of religion and probably never explore or consider atheism. Did you check out the video, at http://www.beyondtod...ProgramID=bt015, I mentioned above? Did you ever hear of this notorious atheist they mentioned? May be after careful consideration you'll have a change of heart.

How so?

Checkout this chapter in the booklet Is the Bible True?, at http://www.ucg.org/b...bleprophecy.htm. An example of a prophecy not mentioned in the booklet is Genesis 3:13-15 that provides a prophecy of Christ and the defeat of Satan in the end times. This theme - the coming of Christ and the defeat of Satan - is consistent throughout the Bible.

stephenszpak gave you wise counsel. If you pray to God for understanding before you undertake a search for His existence, He will more than likely grant it.

[advancedatheist]

I would like to point out that the scientists and atheists who see no evidence for the existence of God, in most cases, have not done a thorough study of the Bible.

It doesn't matter what the bible says -- and I have read it, BTW.

I don't believe in god because reality doesn't work the way theists claim.

BTW, I take issue with atheists who want to define "atheism" as "the absence of or lack of belief in gods." When you ask people to provide examples of "atheists," they don't suggest babies, feral children, the profoundly brain damaged and others "without belief in gods." No, they spontaneously think of individuals who articulate reasons why they don't believe in gods, like the currently hot Richard Dawkins.

Given the real, street-level understanding of "atheist," it follows that "atheism" really means something like "the critical rejection of god beliefs or theistic claims about reality."

[Athanasios]

Did you check out the video, at http://www.beyondtod...ProgramID=bt015, I mentioned above? Did you ever hear of this notorious atheist they mentioned? May be after careful consideration you'll have a change of heart.

Yes, I did. Their arguments were fairly weak, and the dawkins link i posted addresses those arguments. He also was a good friend of the "notorious atheist", and did field a question about what he thought about his friend's conversion.

Most of this can be heard at the question answer section at the very end, if you don't want to hear his lecture: http://video.google....86584&q=dawkins

[william7]

It doesn't matter what the bible says -- and I have read it, BTW.

I don't believe in god because reality doesn't work the way theists claim.

BTW, I take issue with atheists who want to define "atheism" as "the absence of or lack of belief in gods." When you ask people to provide examples of "atheists," they don't suggest babies, feral children, the profoundly brain damaged and others "without belief in gods." No, they spontaneously think of individuals who articulate reasons why they don't believe in gods, like the currently hot Richard Dawkins.

Given the real, street-level understanding of "atheist," it follows that "atheism" really means something like "the critical rejection of god beliefs or theistic claims about reality."

Have you ever explored any of the literature put out by the United Church of God, at http://www.ucg.org/? They provide a more credible understanding of the Bible that's much different and contrary to your typical Roman Catholic and protestant versions. I have some very serious disagreements with them on certain fundamental issues, but I still advocate their literature to those looking to do a serious study of the Bible.

I've noticed that most serious atheists use the Catholic and protestant churches as their straw man.
These churches and other religions of the world are practicing are very flawed version of Christianity that some recognize as Satan's counterfeit Christianity designed to deceive the masses. See http://www.tomorrows...item=1140203084. You have to be able to distinguish between the true and the false.

[william7]

cnorwood19, I keep getting a blank page on the Dawkins video. Can you repost it from another source?

[Athanasios]

cnorwood19, I keep getting a blank page on the Dawkins video. Can you repost it from another source?

Yeah, that was my bad. I forgot that the board truncates URLs. Here it is: http://video.google....86584&q=dawkins

Question and Answer starts at 37:30

[advancedatheist]

I've noticed that most serious atheists use the Catholic and protestant churches as their straw man.
These churches and other religions of the world are practicing are very flawed version of Christianity that some recognize as Satan's counterfeit Christianity designed to deceive the masses. See http://www.tomorrows...item=1140203084. You have to be able to distinguish between the true and the false.

1. Nobody goes around saying, "Hello, we present the counterfeit gospel." The self-professed "true christians" draw the dividing line to distinguish themselves from the non-true ones -- but every sect draws it differently!

2. Even if a church could determine the original version of christian teaching, that still wouldn't make it true.

3. The original version of christian teaching didn't exist anyway. Modern scholars of early christian history now realize that "christiantity" in its first few centuries incorporated competing and conflicting beliefs that the Roman authorities settled through a political process, not because they discerned the "true" one.

[william7]

Thanks for reposting that video cnorwood19. Dawkins has real impressive academic credentials. He's, know doubt, a master at oral and written rhetoric. You could compare him to a top heavy weight boxer or a star quarterback in professional football. This, however, doesn't make him right in everything he says. Some of the audience raised some pretty tough questions he wasn't able to deal with adequately in my opinion.

I watched another video with Dawkins in it today that kinda scared me a little bit. The Rational Response Squad video, at http://video.google....19566&q=dawkins, smacked of "big brotherism" or big psychiatristism to me. I didn't know the intellectuals had finally come up with adequate definitions for what constitutes the abnormal and the normal or the irrational and the rational in human behaviour. The last time I looked this was still a major topic of dispute among psychiatric philosophers. I was left with the feeling that these atheists would employ police state tactics, with the assistance of psychiatry, on those who believe in God and the Bible if they got powerful enough to do so.

If this is the year of Dawkins, I sure hope the prophet Elijah has a much better year when God sends him just before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. See Malachi 4:5,6.

[Athanasios]

I watched another video with Dawkins in it today that kinda scared me a little bit. The Rational Response Squad video, at http://video.google....19566&q=dawkins, smacked of "big brotherism" or big psychiatristism to me. I didn't know the intellectuals had finally come up with adequate definitions for what constitutes the abnormal and the normal or the irrational and the rational in human behaviour. The last time I looked this was still a major topic of dispute among psychiatric philosophers. I was left with the feeling that these atheists would employ police state tactics, with the assistance of psychiatry, on those who believe in God and the Bible if they got powerful enough to do so.

Yes. I don't think Dawkins was into a lot of what those people were. He tried to moderate them some, if you watch closely. In no way would I support an atheism that is anything but an exemplary model of ethics. If it is something other than that, then it is a religion, not the absence of it.

[stephenszpak]

I've noticed that most serious atheists use the Catholic and protestant churches as their straw man.
These churches and other religions of the world are practicing are very flawed version of Christianity that some recognize as Satan's counterfeit Christianity designed to deceive the masses. See http://www.tomorrows...item=1140203084. You have to be able to distinguish between the true and the false.

1. Nobody goes around saying, "Hello, we present the counterfeit gospel." The self-professed "true christians" draw the dividing line to distinguish themselves from the non-true ones -- but every sect draws it differently!

2. Even if a church could determine the original version of christian teaching, that still wouldn't make it true.

3. The original version of christian teaching didn't exist anyway. Modern scholars of early christian history now realize that "christiantity" in its first few centuries incorporated competing and conflicting beliefs that the Roman authorities settled through a political process, not because they discerned the "true" one.

Christianity is following Jesus.

-Stephen

[william7]

Christianity is following Jesus.

Since Christianity is about following Jesus wouldn't you agree that we're obligated to follow the same Holy Days and Sabbath He did? Jesus also didn't practice any paganized forms of worship. He was strictly for keeping both the important and the lesser matters of the law. See Matthew 23:23.

Stephen, are you by any chance a member of a catholic or protestant church? If you are, I recommend you pull away from it as quickly as you can. Nothing will hinder your following of Jesus more than following the false doctrines of those churches.

[stephenszpak]

elijah3

Not sure what you are driving at.

-Stephen